Merger objection litigation

Subscribe to Merger objection litigation

One of the most significant phenomena in the world of corporate and securities litigation has been the rise of merger objection litigation. As has been well-documented, merger objection litigation reached the point in recent years that virtually every public company merger transaction drew at least one lawsuit. The circumstances surrounding merger objection litigation began to change after the Delaware courts evinced their displeasure with this kind of litigation in a series of rulings that culminated in the 2016 decision in Trulia, in which the court rejected the kind of disclosure only settlement that had characterized the resolution of these kinds of cases. Since then, the merger objection lawsuits have shifted to federal courts. Moreover, these cases, now in federal court, increasingly are not settled; rather, they are dismissed in exchange for the defendants’ willingness to pay the plaintiffs’ counsel a so-called “mootness fee.”

In a May 29, 2019 paper entitled “Mootness Fees” (here), Matthew Cain and Steven Davidoff Solomon of UC Berkley Law School, Jill Fisch of Penn Law School, and Randall Thomas of Vanderbilt Law School take a look at the recent rise of mootness fee dismissals in merger objection litigation. Their paper documents that the rise of mootness fee settlements has turned merger objection litigation into a process for a small number of lower tier plaintiffs’ firms to in effect extract a toll from companies involved in M&A transactions, largely without court scrutiny or even minimal disclosure requirements. The authors suggest a number of procedural mechanisms to try to provide some scrutiny  and transparency over these kinds of settlements.
Continue Reading Mootness Fees: The Latest in the Merger Objection Litigation Phenomenon

The pace of federal court securities class action filings during 2018 was “the highest since the aftermath of the 2000 dot-com crash,” according to a recent report from NERA Economic Consulting. Not only were the filings during the year at significantly elevated levels, but the filings “accelerated over the second half of the year, with the fourth quarter being one of the busiest on record.” As noteworthy as the filing trends are, the elevated filing pace “masked fundamental changes in the filing characteristics,” including the shift toward significantly higher amounts of investor losses. Average and median settlement levels also jumped significantly during the year, compared to the year prior. The January 29, 2019 report, entitled “Recent Trends in Securities Class Action Litigation: 2018 Full-Year Review” can be found here. NERA Economic Consulting’s January 29, 2019 press release about the report can be found here. My analysis of the 2018 federal court securities class action lawsuit filings can be found here.
Continue Reading NERA Economic Consulting: Securities Suit Filings at Highest Level in Years

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in a case that will determine what a plaintiff must plead in order to state a claim for false statements or omissions in connection with a tender offer under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Ninth Circuit held in the case at issue that a plaintiff needs only plead negligence, differing on the issue from at least five different federal circuit courts that had previously held that in order to establish a claim a plaintiff must plead that the defendants acted with scienter. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case could have a significant impact on merger objection lawsuits filed in connection with tender offers. The Supreme Court’s January 4, 2019 order in Emulex Corporation v. Varjabedien can be found here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Consider Whether Negligence Sufficient to State Section 14(e) Tender Offer Claims

As I have previously noted on this blog, merger objection litigation imposes significant costs on the defendant companies and their insurers. In the following guest post, Patrick Gallagher of the integrated communications and investor relations firm Dix & Eaton takes a look at recent developments in the merger objection litigation arena. I would like to thank the author for allowing me to publish the article as a guest post on this site. It was originally published on the Dix & Eaton Blog. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Pat’s guest post follows below.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Merger Objection Lawsuits Getting Tougher for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

The percentage of M&A transactions valued over $100 million attracting at least one merger objection lawsuit continued to decline in 2017, according to a recent Cornerstone Research study. The July 18, 2018 study, entitled “Shareholder Litigation Involving Acquisitions of Public Companies: Review of 2017 M&A Litigation” (here), also reports that the average number of lawsuits filed per M&A deal and the percentage of M&A deal litigation voluntarily dismissed declined in 2017, as well. Cornerstone Research’s July 18, 2018 press release about the report can be found here.
Continue Reading Percentage of M&A Deals Attracting Litigation Continued to Decline in 2017

In a series of rulings that culminated in the January 2016 decision in the Trulia case, the Delaware courts evinced their hostility to the disclosure-only settlements that so often characterize the resolution of merger objection lawsuits. Since that time claimants have been filing the merger objection suits in courts outside Delaware. The question has been whether the other courts where the merger objection cases are now being filed would follow Delaware’s strict Trulia standard when reviewing disclosure-only settlements. In a ruling late last week, an intermediate appellate court in Florida expressly adopted Delaware’s Trulia standard. The Florida ruling does raise hopes that other courts might follow as well, which in turn could help stem the tide of proliferating merger objection litigation. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District’s July 13, 2018 decision in the Quality Distribution case can be found here.
Continue Reading Florida Court Adopts Delaware’s Strict Standard for Review of Disclosure-Only Settlements

The torrid pace of securities class action lawsuit filings continued in the first half of 2018, coming in at a rate only very slightly below last year’s record-setting pace. While a significant number of the first half filings are attributable to merger objection lawsuit lawsuits, the number of traditional filing alone during the first half of the year were well above historical levels. If the first half’s pace continues in the second half of the year, the projected number of year-end filings would approach last year’s elevated total.
Continue Reading Torrid Securities Suit Filing Pace Continues in Year’s First Half

In prior posts (for example here), I noted that a series of Delaware court decisions culminating in the Court of Chancery’s January 2016 opinion in the Trulia case signaled the state’s courts’ hostility to disclosure-only settlements in merger objection lawsuit, which in turn has encouraged merger objectors to file their lawsuits in other jurisdictions. The Trulia line of cases is in fact only one of several recent judicial developments in Delaware that constrain shareholder claimants. So is stockholder litigation in trouble in Delaware? In a March 22, 2018 post on the Delaware Business Litigation Report (here), Edward McNally of the Morris James law firm take a look at this question, discussing where things stand while Delaware’s courts look to find the proper balance.
Continue Reading Is Shareholder Litigation in Delaware in Trouble?

In a series of rulings culminating in the January 2016 decision in Trulia (about which refer here), Delaware’s courts have evinced their hostility to the kind of disclosure-only settlement in which merger objection suits are frequently resolved. Since that time, plaintiffs’ lawyers increasingly have filed merger-objection lawsuits outside of Delaware, either in federal court or courts in other states. The question since then has been whether other jurisdictions’ courts would follow Delaware’s courts’ lead in rejecting disclosure-only settlements. Many courts have followed Delaware, but others have followed a different path. In particular, New York, in an intermediate appellate court decision in Gordon v. Verizon (about which refer here), set a lower standard than Delaware’s courts for accepting disclosure-only settlements.

However, the apparently more lenient New York standard did not stop New York Supreme Court Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich from rejecting a proposed disclosure-only settlement of a lawsuit challenging Martin Marietta’s 2014 acquisition of Texas Industries. In a scathing February 8, 2018 opinion (here), Judge Kornreich rejected the proposed settlement as “utterly useless to shareholders.” Her opinion shows that even under New York’s seemingly more lax standard, disclosure only settlements could face significant scrutiny and could be rejected where the additional disclosures do not provide benefits to shareholders.
Continue Reading New York Court Rejects “Utterly Useless” Disclosure-Only Merger Objection Suit Settlement